ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED,. CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois,

Complainant,

-vs-

EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and

ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,

Respondents

.

People of the State of Illinois,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois,

Complainant,

-vs-

Community Landfill Company, Inc

.

Respondent

.

BY

:

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, February 6, 2006,

filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, by electronic filing, Complainant's Response to

Motion for Summary Judgment, copies of which are attached

herewith and served upon you

.

PCB No . 04-207

PCB No . 97-193

(Consolidated)

(Enforcement)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

LISA MADIGAN

Atto ey General f the

of Illinoi

t

HRISTOPHER GRANT

ssistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W . Randolph St ., 20 Ch Flr

.

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-5388

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois,

Complainant,

-vs-

EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and

ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,

Respondents

.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney

General of the State of Illinois,

Complainant,

-vs-

Community Landfill Company, Inc

.

Respondent

.

PCB No . 04-207

PCB No. 97-193

(Consolidated)

(Enforcement)

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO EDWARD PRUIM AND ROBERT PRUIM'S

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by

LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and

hereby responds to Respondents' Edward Pruim and Robert Pruims ''

(collectively "Pruim Respondents") Motions for Summary Judgment,

as follows

:

1

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

I

.

INTRODUCTION

Respondents Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim

("Pruim

Respondents")

have individually filed Motions for Summary

Judgment in this matter. However except for minor and irrelevant

differences, the Motions are essentially identical . In the

interest of economy, Respondent hereby responds to both Motions

in this single Response

.

The Motions seek judgment in favor of the Pruim Respondents

on all remaining counts of the complaint filed in PCB 04-207

(which, on the Pruim Respondents' motion, was consolidated with

PCB 97-193)

.

II

.

MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN COUNTS

Simultaneously with the filing of this Response, Complainant

has filed its Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Certain Counts of its

Complaint . Complainant's Motion to dismiss only seeks voluntary

dismissal of Respondents Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim on Counts

XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVIII, as alleged in the complaint filed

in PCB 04-207 . Continued prosecution of these counts against all

Respondents in the consolidated cases is not necessary to obtain

the relief sought by Complainant . Dismissal of these counts, in

favor of the

Pruim Respondents only,

will expedite hearing of the

consolidated matters

.

III

. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Summary Judgment is only appropriate where the "pleadings,

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits

if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law"

.

Dowd & Dowd, Ltd . v. Gleason,

181 Ill . 2d 460

(1998) . The Board will consider the pleadings, depositions, and

affidavits strictly against the movant . See

: Des Plaines River

Watershed Alliance et al,

v

.

Illinois EPA et al,

PCB 04-88

(November 17, 2005)

slip op,

.

at 7

.

IV

.

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Pruim Respondents make four claims in support of their

Motions for Summary Judgment . First, they claim that the Pruim

Respondents had no personal involvement or active participation

in day-to-day operations ; Second that actions were taken solely

in the scope of managerial functions, third, that the Pruim

Respondents should not be held liable for Respondent Community

Landfill Company's ("CLC's) failure to perform administrative

tasks; and finally that the delay in bringing actions against the

Respondents personally (Motions, at pp 2-3] . However, the Pruim

Respondents have failed to bring forward any evidence that would

entitle them to judgment on any of the counts remaining against

them. Moreover, they have attached affidavits to their answers

which should preclude the granting of summary judgment

.

a. Summary Judgment should be denied based on the Pruim

Respondents' Answers

.

On January 4, 2005, the Pruim Respondents filed separate

3

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

answers

to the Complaint

.

Attached to each Answer is a sworn

affidavit stating, in pertinent part, the following

:

"I am without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of allegations contained

in Counts

I,

II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI,

XVII, XVIII, XIX

of

the Complaint and demand strict proof

thereof

.

In other words, the Pruim Respondents have conceded that

they have no knowledge about any allegations regarding the

Complaint with the exception of Count IV [Failure to Maintain

Adequate Financial Assurance Pursuant to the April 20, 1993

Permit] . A statement of fact in a pleading is a judicial

admission, binding on the party making it . See: State Security

Insurance Co. v. Linton,

67 Ill . App . 3d 480 (1s` Dist ., 1978)

.

The Pruim Respondents have provide no affidavit to correct the

above-noted statement . Moreover, despite the fact that the

complaint in PCB 04-207 was filed on May 21, 2004, the Pruim

Respondents have conducted no discovery in this case. They have

taken no depositions, and served neither interrogatories nor

requests to admit upon Complainant since the May 21, 2004

complaint was filed

.

Such an admission

absolutely inconsistent with their

subsequent motions for summary judgment . The Respondents have

provided no basis for changing their sworn position that they

lack knowledge

"

.

. .to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity

.

. .", and claim that there is no issue of material fact

4

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

and that they are entitled to judgment

.

On the basis of this

admission alone,

the Pruim Respondents motions should be denied

on all remaining counts, excepting Count IV

.

b

.

Complainant is Not Required to Prove its Case in its

Response

The Pruim Respondents repeatedly state that Complainant has

failed to `prove' that the Pruim Respondents were personally

involved in the alleged violations . This claim ignores the

obvious : Complainant is not required to prove facts at this point

in the proceeding. The Respondents' arguments regarding

`sufficient proof' should be considered only in their post-

hearing briefs. Moreover, because they have not conducted

discovery, the Pruim Respondents' claim that Complainant lacks

sufficient proof of individual liability is made without

any

knowledge of what evidence will be offered against them

.

c

.

Remaining issues should be Saved for Hearing

The Pruim Respondents note that the consolidated cases

have been litigated over more than 8 years . They sought, and

received several extensions of the deadline for filing their

Motions. Hearing in this matter is set for April, 2006 . The

Board should find that the proper resolution of this matter is

through evidence properly presented at hearing . At this late

date, any arguments regarding personal liability should be raised

in post-hearing briefs, following the April hearing

.

5

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

V .

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO FIND THE RESPONDENTS LIABLE

Attached to Complainant's Response are excerpts from the

deposition testimony of Edward Pruim [Exhibit A], Robert Pruim

[Exhibit B], and site manager James Pelnarsh [Exhibit C] . Also

attached, as Exhibits D, E, and F, are copies of landfill

capacity reports for the Morris Community Landfill. The Exhibits

and testimony provide more than sufficient proof to hold the

Pruim Respondents liable for the alleged violations under the

applicable law

.

a. Community Landfill Company

Respondent Community Landfill Company is an "S Corporation",

or "Subchapter S Corporation" . Blacks Law Dictionary defines

such a business organization, as follows

:

S Corporation . A

corporation whose income is taxed through

its

shareholders

rather than through the corporation itself .

Only corporations

with

a limited number of

shareholders

can

elect S-corporation tax status under

Subchapter

S of the

Internal Revenue Code

.

BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY,

7r'f

EDITION

(1999)

.

CLC is a small, closely held company. It has only two

shareholders, Edward Pruim & Robert Pruim

[Exhibit

A, pp

.

10-11]

.

Edward and Robert Pruim also are the sole officers of CLC

.

[Exhibit B, pp. 10]

.

During the relevant period, it never had

more than four employees

.

[Exhibit B, p . 27]

.

Also, during the

relevant period, only Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim had the

authority to sign checks for CLC

[Exhibit B, p . 32; Exhibit C,

i

6

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

p.23] . CLC's main office was first located in Crestwood,

Illinois and then moved to Riverdale, Illinois

[Exhibit

B, p

.

12] . Only a 'ticket office' was kept at the landfill itself

[Exhibit C, p . 12]

.

CLC's sole business is the operation

Morris Community Landfill

[Exhibit A, p. 11]

.

b. Edward Pruim

Edward Pruim is Secretary of CLC . Along with Robert Pruim,

he also owned XL Disposal, formerly an operator of Waste Transfer

Stations

[Exhibit

B, p. 8]

.

of the

He owned the Crestwood building that

once served as CLC's main office

[Exhibit

B, p

.

29]

.

Along with

Robert Pruim he personally guaranteed some of the obligations of

CLC

(Exhibit B, pp .

20-21]

.

He reviewed, signed, and submitted

reports to Illinois EPA

[Exhibit

A, pp. 15, 18]

c .

Robert Pruim

Robert Pruim is president and co-owner of CLC . Along with

Edward Pruim, he also co-owned XL disposal and personally

guaranteed obligations of CLC . He also signed required Illinois

EPA reports

.

d .

James Pelnarsh

James Pelnarsh is site manager CLC, based out of the Morris

Community Landfill . In his deposition, he testified, inter alia,

to the following

:

1)

Prior to joining Community Landfill Company, he worked

for kL disposal

.

[Exhibit C, p . 7]

7

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

2)

He reported to

the

`main office',

which was originally

located in Crestwood,

then moved to Riverdale

.

[Ex

.

C, p

.

25]

3)

The other employees at the landfill included

"two or three

operators,

paper picker, and a girl that was in the office"

[Exhibit

C,

p

.

12]

4)

He summed up his daily activities, beginning in 1983, as

"Opened the gate in the morning and closed it at night ; and

whatever came through the gate, you know, put it in the

piles and did it properly"

.

[Ex .

C, p

.

11]

.

5)

when he needed an immediate decision he would contact either

Edward or Robert Pruim

.

[Exhibit

C, p

.

27]

.

6)

Setting fees, pricing and billing were done out of the

`main office' and were not his responsibility . Records of

shipments were not kept at the landfill, but were also the

responsibility of the `main office'

[Ex .

C, pp

21-24]

7)

He did not have authority to sign checks or pay bills

[Ex

.

C, p

.

23 .]

8)

Financial assurance requirements were the responsibility of

the `main office'

.

[Ex

.

C, p

.

38]

e. Landfill Capacity Reports

Exhibits D-F

are three landfill capacity reports for the

Morris Community Landfill . Each report is signed and certified

as accurate by either Edward Pruim

[Ex. D, E],

or Robert Pruim

[Ex

.

F]

.

VI . COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATIONS

After dismissal of certain Counts, thirteen Counts remain to

be determined, on issues of liability and remedy, against the

Pruim Defendants . However, the alleged violations logically

relate to three different personal responsibilities of the

8

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Pruims' . First, there are allegation relating to the managerial

failure to submit permit applications and provide for financial

assurance (Counts IV, V, XVII, XIX) . Second there are violations

related to excess waste being deposited in the landfill, with

resultant waste 'overheight', permit, and open dumping violations

(Counts VII, VIII, IX, X) . Finally, there are maintenance,

operational, and unpermitted waste violations . (Count I, II, III,

VI, XII) . Complainant responds to these in turn

.

a .

Managerial Violations

As acknowledged by Edward Pruim, the stockholders and

officers made all decisions regarding seeking permits and

arranging for financial assurance

[Exhibit

B, pp. 31-33] . The

`stockholders and officers' were solely Edward Pruim and Robert

Pruim. Complainant alleges that Pruim Respondents

:

-Continued to allow waste disposal, but failed to provide

the required financial assurance from 1993 until 1996 [Count IV]

;

-Failed to cause CLC to file a timely modification to its

permit [Count V]

;

-Failed to increase financial assurance prior to operation

of

a

new landfill gas extraction system [Count XVII]

.

-Failed to provide revised cost estimate [Count XIX]

As sole officers, shareholders, and directors, the Pruim

Respondents were also the sole persons with authority to cause

the company to take these actions. Moreover, as the-only parties

9

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

with control of

the company's finances,

only they could commit

the funds

.

Edward Pruim admitted that permits decisions were

made by the `stockholders and officers'

[Exhibit A, p . 31)

.

Moreover, the Pruim Respondents could have chosen other

options, including discontinuing operations, ceasing waste

disposal and initiating closure prior to 1993, and/or

transferring their interest to persons who could take these

required actions . However they decided to continue CLC's

operations at the landfill without obtaining proper permits, and

thereby violated the pertinent sections of the Act . As sole

stockholders in a small company, they alone

benefitted from

continuing operations

.

In the violations alleged in Counts IV, V, XVII, and XIX,

the Pruims" personal involvement and direct participation are

inherent . Here, as stated in People v .

C.J.R

.

Processing,

Inc .,

269 111 . App. 3d 1013 (3d Dist, 1995), it is clear that

"[i)mposing liability only upon the corporations and not on the

individuals

.

.

.would undermine the Act's purposes ."

Id.,

at 1018

.

b. Overheight Violations

Not only were the Pruim Respondents' personally involved in

the violations alleged in Counts VII, VIII, IX, and X, it is

plain that their conduct was knowing

and

wilful

.

The Landfill

Capacity Reports attached as exhibits D-F clearly indicate that,

in 1994, the landfill was rapidly approaching its legally

10

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

permitted capacity. In the April, 1993 Report

[Exhibit D, p. 4]

.it is noted that only 464 ;700 cubic yards of capacity remained

.

The report is certifiedtoand signed by Edward Pruim

.

The January 18, 1995 Report identifies the period when the

landfill exceeded its capacity. On Page 4 of this report [Ex

.

E,

p. 4], it is noted that 264,290 cubic yards of capacity remained

on April 1, 1994, and that between that date and December 31,

1994, the Landfill had accepted 457,008 yard, or 192,718 cubic

yards over capacity. Remaining capacity is acknowledged to be

zero

[Ex . E, p

.

4]

.

This report is also certified and siqned by

Edward Pruim

.

The January 15, 1996 Report indicates continued and knowing

violations. Despite having reported, on January 18, 1995, that

the landfill was almost certainly over capacity, Exhibit F shows

that an additional 540,135 cubic yards of waste were deposited in

the landfill during 1995

[Exhibit F, p

.

4]

.

This report is

certified to and signed by Robert Pruim

.

There can be no more egregious example of personal and

direct involvement, or of a wilful violation . The Pruim

Respondents certified in 1993 that the remaining capacity of the

landfill was only 264,290 cubic yards . This number was not

merely an estimate: the figure was derived from `Aerial Survey

supplemented with recent field survey .'

[Ex. D, p . 2]

.

As of

January 19, 1995, they knew the landfill was over capacity . And

11

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

yet they continued their disposal business throughout1995,

adding an additional 540,135 cubic yards to the existing over-

capacity at

the landfill

.

As sole owners and officers of the company,

the Pruim

Respondents had the legal obligation to cease operations when

they knew they landfill had reached capacity

.

No other person

had the authority,

or the duty,

to do so

.

Also,

no other person

benefitted from the violations

.

The signed landfill capacity

reports clearly indicate

that

the Pruim Respondents knew of the

prospective violations,

and decided to operate in violation of

the company's permit, and in violation of the Act . Summary

Judgment on these counts must be denied

.

c

Operational and unpermitted waste violations

In Counts I, II, III, XII, and XIII Complainant alleges

various violations of operational,

maintenance,

and improper

disposal regulations . A question of fact remains regarding all

of these alleged violations, which precludes summary judgment on

these Counts

.

As testified to by Robert Pruim, Community Landfill Company

never had more than around four employees . Yet in their Motion,

the Pruim Respondents state that James

Pelnarsh

had day-to-day

control over the Site, and claim that the Pruim Respondents were

never on Site at the time of Illinois EPA

inspections

.

However,

this fact is irrelevant because of the Pruim Respondents'

12

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

personal control over finances

.

As noted above, Mr . Pelnarsh did not have authority to sign

checks; his ability to institute remedial action as required is

unknown at this point

.

In Count I, Complainant alleges maintenance violations,

including failure to cover waste, allowing erosion of landfill

cover to allow leachate seeps, and blowing litter . The

violations were noted during

seven inspections ranging from April

7, 1994 to July 20, 1999, a period of more than five years . A

range of violations over such a period indicates a general

disregard of proper maintenance, and

a

failure to properly fund

remedial action . Whether the Pruim Respondents were aware of the

ongoing violations, and refused to provide funds to remedy known

problems is currently unknown. Count I should .go to hearing

.

In Count II Complainant alleges that the Pruim Respondents

failed to take action to prevent leachate seeps . In Count VI,

Complainant alleges that such failure caused water pollution

.

Again, it is unknown whether sufficient funds were provided by

the Respondents to prevent and remediate these problems

.

In Counts III and XII, Complainant alleges that the Pruim

Respondents allowed the unpermitted disposal of used tires and

landscape waste . According to the testimony of James Pelnarsh,

the negotiation of-prices, and credit terms was done through the

`main office'

[Ex .

C, p .

21-23]

.

In fact, the evidence suggests

13

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

that all dumping-related arrangements were done through the Pruim

Respondents'

home office

.

It is unknown at this point whether

either Edward or Robert Pruim arranged to have tires and

landscape waste dumped at the landfill, or what prices where

charged. Summary judgment on these counts should be denied

.

d. Financial Support

Underlying all of the alleged violations is the serious

issue of personal financial benefit from landfill operations, and

the Pruim Respondents' willingness to provide sufficient capital

to prevent violations . As in cases relating to piercing

the

corporate shield to reach stockholder liability, failure to

provide sufficient capital in our case should be a major factor

.

Courts have stated

:

"(iJf

a corporation is

organized and carries on a business

without

substantial

capital in such

a was that the corporation it

is likely to have no sufficient assets available to meet its

debts,

it is inequitable that shareholders

should

set up

such a

flimsy organization

to escape personal liability" . Fiumetto v

.

(1980))

.

Similarly, if the Pruim Respondents, who jointly controlled

the checkbook for any expenditures at the landfill, failed to

provide sufficient capital to maintain the landfill in accordance

with regulations, and personally benefitted through that failure,

they should be deemed to have personal involvement and active

participation in the violations

.

14

Garrett

Enterprises,

Inc .,

321 Ill . App . 3d

946

(2d Dist

.

2001)

(Citing Gallaqher v. Reconco Builders, Inc ., 91

Ill . App

.

3d

999

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

VII

. THEPRUIMRESPONDENTS'CLAIM FOR JUDGMENT DUE TO DELAY

Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim also claim for summary

judgment on the basis of a claimed .`delay' in enforcement. No

evidence of any prejudice is offered, and no authority cited to

back up .the Respondents' requests. Rather it merely restates

claims made in its earlier Motion to Dismiss

.

CLC is apparently a "six-person company", with only four

employees, Edward Pruim, and Robert Pruim . The Pruims' can

hardly claim lack of knowledge of the substantive allegations,

the evidence asserted, or of the violations themselves . There is

no prejudice to the Pruim Respondents ; rather, since many of the

violations at the landfill remain unaddressed, and since CLC is a

Subchapter S corporation, with profits and losses flowing

annually to the Pruim Respondents; their inclusion in this matter

is necessary to avoid prejudice to Complainant

.

VII

.

CONCLUSION

Following dismissal of certain counts, thirteen counts

remain alleged against the Pruim Respondents . Only two of the

cases cited by the Respondents accurately describes the standard

of liability of the Pruim Respondents under the Act

(People v .

C.J.R. Processing, Inc ., 269 Ill . App . 3d 1013 (3d Dist . 1995),

and

People v. Tang,

346 Ill . App . 3d 277 (1 s` Dist . 2004))

.

Neither case is quite on point, since. each addresses motions

filed under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, not summary judgment, and the Board

15

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

has already determined that Complainant's Compliant

in this case

was legally sufficient

.

But both cases stand for the proposition that

a separate

corporate identity is not a defense to enforcement under the Act

against individuals where

`personal involvement

or direct

participation in a violation of the Act'

is shown

.

C .J.R .,

at

1018

.

Because Complainant

is merely responding

to Complainant's

Motion,

it

is

not attempting to

`prove

up'

all factors,

but

merely seeks to go

to hearing on the issue

.

However,

Complainant has produced more than enough evidence

to allow the Board to find personal involvement . Respondent CLC

is a small 'six-person' company . The only other managerial

employee is Mr . James Pelnarsh. Mr. Pelnarsh opened and closed

the landfill, sought direction from the Pruim Respondents on

immediate decisions, did not have authority to spend money, and

was not involved in permitting or arranging financial assurance

.

Therefore, it is clear that any significant decisions were made

solely by Edward Pruim and/or Robert Pruim . Included in these

decisions was the continued operation of the landfill in

violation of the Act

.

The Pruim Respondents have denied having sufficient

knowledge of the truth or falsity of Complainant's allegations

.

Nothing in the exhibits attached to the Pruim Respondent's

Motions changes their position. After considering the pleadings,

16

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

exhibits,

and depositions,

and affidavits, the Board should deny

the Pruim Respondents' Motions for Summary Judgment, and allow

the April 10, 2006 hearing to proceed on all remaining issues

.

WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

respectfully requests that the Board deny Respondents' EDWARD

PRUIM'S and ROBERT PRUIM'S Motions for Summary Judgment

.

BY

:

ISTOPHER GRANT

Assistant Attorneys General

Environmental Bureau

188 W. Randolph St ., 20 th Flr

.

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-5388

(312) 814-0609

17

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE

I,

CHRISTOPHER GRANT,

an attorney,

do certify that

I caused

to be served this

6th

day of February, 2006,

Complainant's

Response

to Motion for Summary Judgment upon the persons listed

below by placing same in an envelope bearing sufficient postage

with the United States Postal Service located at 100 W . Randolph,

Chicago

.

SERVICE LIST

:

Mr. Mark Larose

Ms. Clarissa Grayson

Larose & Bosco, Ltd

.

200 N. La Salle Street, #2810

Chicago, IL 60601

Mr . Bradley P . Halloran

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph

Chicago, Illinois 60601 [via hand delivery]

[without exhibits]

Ali

A

A

A

01

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Exhibit A

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

1

•

1

STATE OF ILLINOIS

SS

.

2

COUNTY OF C 0 0 K

3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT,

LAW DIVISION

4

•

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

)

5

ILLINOIS,

)

6

Complainant/Petitioner

7

•

vs

.

) No

.

PBC 97-193

8

) and

PBC 04-207

•

EDWARD PRUIM AND ROBERT

)

9

PRUIM,

10

Respondent

.

(Consolidated)

11

PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF

)

ILLINOIS,

)

12

)

Complainant/Petitioner

)

13

vs

.

)

14

)

Community Landfill Company,

)

15

INC

.

)

16

Respondent

.

)

17

•

18

This is the deposition of EDWARD H . PRUIM,

•

called by the Plaintiff for examination, taken

19

pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court of

20

the State of Illinois pertaining to the taking

of depositions for the purpose of discovery,

21

taken before PEGGY A. ANDERSON, a Notary Public

•

within and for the County of Cook, State of

22

Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of

said state, at 188 West Randolph, 20th Floor,

23

Chicago, Illinois, on the 12th day of October

A .D . 2005, at 9 :00 a .m

.

24

I

EXHIBIT

A

0

TOOMEY REPORTING (312)

853-0648

---

0

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

8

1

Q

Is anybody else involved with that

•

2

company?

3

A

No

.

4

Q

What does your work entail with that

•

5

company?

6

A

I develop property. Right now I'm

7

doing some residential property

.

8

Q

Do you know a Robert Pruim?

9

A

Yes

.

10

Q

What relation is he to you?

11

A

He's my brother

.

12

Q

Do you have any business affiliations

•

13

with him?

14

MR. LaROSE : What do you mean by

15

business affiliations?

16

BY MS . TOMAS

:

17

Q

Are you involved in any corporations

18

with your brother?

19

A

Yes

.

20

Q

What corporations are those?

•

21

A

Community Landfill

.

22

Q

Do you own the Morris Community

23

Landfill located at 1501 Ashley Road, Morris,

24

Grundy County, Illinois?

---

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

10

1

please?

2

MR

.

LaROSE

:

You

can but,

I mean,

0

3

this deposition

should be

for

a very

4

limited purpose . We have been through all

•

S

of this stuff before, and he's here to

6

answer questions about his personal

7

liability for these 20-some-odd --

8

MS . TOMAS

:

I understand

.

Please

let

9

me ask the questions I would like

to ask

.

10

MR

.

LaROSE

:

Okay

.

11

BY MS . TOMAS

:

12

Q

All right . How long have you and

13

your brother had Community Landfill Company,

14

Incorporated?

15

A

I don't know the exact amount of

16

time

.

Probably 20 years

.

17

Q

20 years . And during that

time, have

18

you been the only officers?

19

A

I believe so

.

20

Q

Okay . When did you become involved

•

21

in the Morris Community Landfill?

22

A

You mean when did we

--

23

Q

Like what year did you become

24

involved?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

11

1

A

I don't know an exact year,

about

20

2

years ago, I believe

.

•

Q

Was Community Landfill established

to

.

4

run the Morris Community Landfill?

5

MR. LaROSE : Was Community Landfill

6

Company you mean?

7

MS . TOMAS

:

I'm sorry?

8

MR. LaROSE : Was Community Landfill

9

Company established?

•

10

MS . TOMAS

:

Yes

.

11

MR. LaROSE : Okay . You can answer

if

12

you know

.

•

13

BY THE WITNESS

:

14

A

I believe it was, yes

.

15

BY MS . TOMAS

:

16

Q

Okay. Let's see

.

I will refer to

17

the Morris Community Landfill as the Morris

18

landfill or the site

.

19

A

Okay

.

20

Q

Now, the Illinois Environmental

•

21

Protection Agency has inspected the site

22

numerous times over the years

.

23

Have you ever been out at the site

•

24

when the Illinois EPA has inspected it?

•

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

0

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

12

1

A

Not

that

I

can recall

.

2

Q

Were

you aware

that

the Illinois

EPA

•

3

has inspected the site, and I will give you

4

dates and if you could answer yes or no

.

April 7th,

•

5

1994?

6

MR

.

LaROSE : The question is was

he

7

aware?

8

MS

.

TOMAS

:

Right

.

Exactly

.

9

BY THE WITNESS

:

10

A

I'm not aware of specific

dates,

no

.

11

BY MS . TOMAS

:

12

Q

At all?

13

A

No

.

14

Q

Have you ever received letters from

15

the Illinois EPA with regards to inspections at

16

the site?

17

MR. LaROSE : Him personally or him as

18

a representative of the corporation?

19

MS . TOMAS

:

Either

.

20

BY THE WITNESS

:

•

21

A

Not personally, no

.

22

BY MS . TOMAS

:

23

Q

Not personally?

24

A

No

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

15

1

MS

.

TOMAS

:

I

said on behalf of

2

Community Landfill Company

.

BY THE WITNESS

:

4

A

I don't understand the question

.

5

Have I submitted anything?

6

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

7

Q

Any permit applications,

8

certifications, anything like that on behalf of

9

Community Landfill Company to the Illinois EPA?

10

A

I might have signed something over

11

the 20-year period. I can't recall any

12

specific permit

.

13

Q

Would you review any documentation

14

you would sign?

15

A

If I sign it, I would review it, yes

.

16

Q

I'm going to show you what we will

17

mark as Exhibit 1

.

It is a Solid Waste

18

Landfill Capacity Certification dated April 19th,

19

1993 .

20

(WHEREUPON,

E . Pruim

21

Exhibit No

.

1 was marked

22

for identification .)

23

BY MS

.

TOMAS

:

0

24

Q

Now,

is that your signature on

--

41

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

---

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

16

1

MR

.

LaROSE : Take a

look

at

the whole

2

document,

Ed

.

Give him

a second, okay?

S

3

Give

me

a

second

.

4

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

0

5

Q

Just let me know when

you

are ready

.

6

MR

.

LaROSE

:

I'm ready

if

you

are

.

7

THE WITNESS

:

Yes

.

8

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

9

Q

Is

that your signature on the final

10

page?

I believe it's page

4

.

11

MR

.

LaROSE

:

Page Bates stamped 0690?

12

MS

.

TOMAS

:

Yes

.

13

BY THE WITNESS

:

14

A

It

looks like my signature,

yes

.

15

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

16

Q

On Page

3,

which

is Bates stamped

17

Number 689,

does

that state that the

number of

18

years

life remaining

at the current disposal

19

rate

was

1 .35?

20

A

Yeah,

I

see that there, yes

.

21

Q

And

the landfill would be able

to

22

remain

open

until March

1995

if

it limited

its

23

waste,

correct?

0

24

A

That's what

it

says,

yes

.

---

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

18

1

that had been received between April 1st, 1994

•

2

and December 31st, 1994 was 450,008 cubic

3

yards ; is that correct?

4

MR. LaROSE : Objection. The document

•

5

speaks for itself

.

6

THE WITNESS: That's what it says

7

here

.

I don't know if it's correct

.

8

BY MS . TOMAS

:

9

Q

Now, would you have reviewed this

10

document before you signed it?

11

A

I don't recall

.

I believe I would

12

have

.

•

13

Q

Okay. Thank you . Is the site a

14

permitted landfill?

15

A

Yes

.

16

Q

And who is in charge of the

17

environmental compliance at the landfill?

18

I believe the engineering company

19

that we had hired

.

20

Q

The engineering company?

•

21

A

Right

.

22

Q

Who is that?

23

A

Well, during this period of time,

it

24

was Andrews Engineering

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

20

1

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

2

Q

Who

is James

Pelnarsh's supervisor

3

for the site?

4

A

He is

the supervisor

of

the site

.

•

5

Q

Does

he

have

--

Does

he answer

to

6

anyone?

7

A

I

guess

he would answer

to the

B

9

stockholders of Community Landfill

.

Q

Who are the stockholders of Community

10

Landfill?

11

A

Myself and my brother

.

12

Q

And if Mr . Pelnarsh was not doing his

13

job in ensuring that the environmental laws

14

were being followed, what actions would be

15

taken by Community Landfill to rectify that?

16

MR . LaROSE

:

I'm going to object to

17

the form of the question

.

It's an improper

18

hypothetical . Counsel, we have got 20-some

19

specific allegations in this case that

20

these gentlemen have been accused of being

•

21

personally involved with . I don't know why

22

we are asking hypotheticals about what-ifs

23

when we have got 22 specific allegations

•

24

right in front of you

.

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

46

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

21

1

BY MS . TOMAS

:

2

Q

Could you please answer my question?

3

MR. LaROSE : No,

he is not going to

4

answer it . Improper hypothetical question

•

5

and I'm directing him not to answer

.

6

MS. TOMAS

:

Fine

.

7

BY MS . TOMAS

:

9

Q

Is either Parcel A or Parcel B at

the

Morris Landfill currently accepting waste?

•

10

A

Parcel A or Parcel B?

11

Q

Either one

.

12

A

No

.

•

13

Q

How long did Parcel A accept waste?

14

MR. LaROSE : Can we go off the record

15

for a second?

16

MR. GRANT

:

Yeah, that's fine

.

17

(WHEREUPON, a discussion

18

was had off the record .)

19

BY MS . TOMAS

:

20

Q

The last question I asked was how

•

21

long did Parcel A accept waste, and I'm asking

22

this on behalf of your involvement with the

23

Morris landfill site?

24

MR. LaROSE : Meaning the landfill

---

r

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

29

1

MR

.

LaROSE

:

Thank

you

.

Got

it

.

2

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

•

3

Q

A meeting

was held to discuss

the

4

violation notice on April 24th of 1997

.

Do you

•

5

remember

being present

at

that meeting?

6

A

Who

was

the meeting with?

7

Q

It would

have been Community Landfill

8

engineers

as

well

as

Illinois Environmental

9

Protection Agency personnel?

10

A

I don't recall

.

11

MR. LaROSE

:

Yeah, don't guess, Ed

.

12

BY

MS

.

TOMAS

:

13

Q

After the violation notice, what,

if

14

any, action did you take at the site to resolve

15

the alleged violations?

16

MR . LaROSE : Did he take or did

the

17

take?

company

18

MS . TOMAS : Did he take individually

.

19

BY

THE WITNESS

:

20

A

I didn't take any

.

•

21

BY

MS . TOMAS

:

22

Q

Did you do anything on behalf of

23

Community Landfill?

24

A

That would be the site manager that

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

0

31

1

A

I don't know if there was ever

a

2

permit applied for for overheight

.

3

Q

Are you aware that if a landfill is

4

over height, it needs to seek additional height

•

limitations from the Illinois EPA?

6

MR. LaROSE

:

I'm going to object

.

I

7

don't think that's an accurate statement of

8

the law. You can answer it, if you know

.

9

BY THE WITNESS

:

10

A

I believe that's one of the remedies

.

11

The other remedy would be to correct the

12

problem

.

•

13

BY MS . TOMAS

:

14

Q

Who would make decisions about

15

seeking any permits for the site?

16

MR. LaROSE : Who would or who did?

17

MS. TOMAS : Who would

.

18

BY THE WITNESS

:

•

19

A

I suppose the stockholders and the

20

officers would

.

•

21

BY MS . TOMAS

:

22

Q

Who did make the decisions regarding

23

permits at the site?

24

MR. LaROSE: Meaning whether to apply

---

t

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

0

32

1

for

them or not?

2

MS

.

TOMAS

:

Right

.

0

3

BY THE WITNESS

:

4

A

Arid you

are talking about all

5

permits?

6

BY MS. TOMAS

:

7

Q

All permits

.

8

A

That would be

-- The stockholders

9

would have to sign off on the permit or the

10

officers

.

0

11

Q

And who would sign those applications

12

on behalf of the stockholders?

13

A

Normally the president or another

14

officer

.

I don't know if there is any strict

15

regulation on what officer signs

.

16

Q

Which would be you as president?

17

A

I'm not president

.

18

Q

Of Community Landfill Company?

19

A

Correct

.

20

Q

Who is president of Community

21

Landfill Company?

22

A

My brother is

.

23

Q

What is your title?

0

24

A

Secretary

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Exhibit B

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

1

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

SS

.

COUNTY OF C 0 0 K

)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT,

LAW DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

Complainant/Petitioner

vs

.

) No

.

PBC

97-193

) and

PBC 04-207

EDWARD PRUIM AND ROBERT

)

(Consolidated)

PRUIM,

J

Respondent

. )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

)

ILLINOIS,

Complainant/Petitioner

)

)

vs

.

)

)

Community Landfill

)

Company,

)

INC

.

)

)

Respondent

.

This is the deposition of ROBERT J . PRUIM,

called by the Plaintiff for examination, taken

pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court of

the State of Illinois pertaining to the taking

of depositions for the purpose of discovery,

taken before PEGGY A. ANDERSON, a Notary Public

within and for the County of Cook, State of

Illinois, and a Certified

Shorthand

Reporter of

said state, at 188 West Randolph, 20th Floor,

Chicago, Illinois, on the 12th day of October

A .D. 2005, at 10 :30 a .m

.

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

2

3

4

5

6

7

•

8

9

•

10

11

12

13

14

15

•

16

17

•

18

19

20

•

21

22

23

0

24

---

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

8

1

Q

About how

long did it operate?

2

A

About

20 years

.

3

Q

And who -- Let's

see

.

Did you own XL

4

Disposal?

•

5

Yes

.

6

Q

Did you own

all of

it

or were

you

7

part owner?

8

A

50 percent

.

9

Q

Who owned the other 50 percent?

10

A

Ed

.

11

Q

When you say "Ed," you mean Edward

12

Pruim?

•

13

A

Yes, that was at the end, not

14

originally

.

15

Q

Did XL Disposal own or operate any

16

landfills or any waste disposal sites?

17

A

Waste transfer stations

.

18

Q

And what type of waste? Was it

19

municipal solid waste or construction

20

demolition debris?

21

A

Both

.

22

Q

Where was XL Disposal's transfer

23

station?

24

A

Several, Crestwood, Illinois,

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

10

1

operating?

2

A

Just Community Landfill

.

3

Q

Okay . And specific to Community

4

Landfill,

what is your title with Community

•

5

Landfill Company?

6

A

President

.

7

Q

Are you involved

-- Is your brother

8

Edward Pruim also involved in Community

9

Landfill Company?

•

10

A

He's an officer

.

11

Q

What's his title?

12

A

I think it's secretary treasurer

.

~,

13

Q

Besides you and Mr . Edward Pruim,

are

14

there any other stockholders?

15

A

No, not currently

.

16

Q

You anticipated my next question

.

I

17

believe that Community Landfill Company was

18

incorporated in 1981 ; do you recall that?

19

A

Yes

.

20

Q

What other shareholders -- what other

•

21

people were shareholders of Community Landfill

22

Company from 1981 to the present?

23

A

Initially, I don't know their names

.

24

I think we were sole owners around '85

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

12

1

registered agent?

2

MR. GRANT : No, I guess I don't

.

3

What I'm really looking for is the main

4

office address

.

5

BY THE WITNESS

:

6

A

It would be there now

.

7

BY MR. GRANT

:

8

Q

During the period from '94 to 2000 or

9

'93 to 2000, where was the office address?

10

A

Crestwood, possibly Riverdale

.

11

Q

Did you have an office in both

12

Crestwood and Riverdale during that period?

•

13

A

Yes

.

14

Q

And do you remember the addresses of

15

those?

16

A

4330 West 137th I think it was

.

17

Q

Was that in Crestwood or Riverdale?

18

A

That's Crestwood

.

19

Q

How about the Riverdale address?

20

A

13901 South Ashland

.

•

21

Q

During the time that Community

22

Landfill had offices at the Crestwood and

23

Riverdale offices, were there any other

24

companies that shared the office space?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

15

1

A

I believe

so

.

2

Q

If

you could

take

a look at

the third

3

page,

which

is Attachment A, five separate

4

requests for documents . Did you bring any

40

documents with you today?

6

A

I did not today

.

7

Q

Okay

.

8

MR. LaROSE

:

For the record, Counsel,

9

I was

-- As you know, I wasn't directly

•

10

involved in this ; but my understanding,

11

Ms . Grayson is here, she can speak to it if

12

she needs to, is that in response to the

13

subpoena

-- I just don't want the record to

14

fall solid as if he didn't comply with the

15

subpoena intentionally

.

16

We objected to Items 1, 2 and 3

17

on the basis that all of those are already

•

18

in the agency's possession, that's your

19

client; Number 4 is because we didn't have

20

it, and we didn't feel an obligation to

•

21

spend

$75

to get it from the Secretary of

22

State's office; and Number

5,

my

23

understanding is that these documents were

•

24

already given

.

0

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

---

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

18

1

We will have to figure out what is the real

2

record

.

40

3

BY MR. GRANT

:

4

Q

I have got what I'm going to ask to

•

5

be marked as Exhibit Number 2

.

6

(WHEREUPON, R . Pruim

7

Exhibit No. 2 was marked

8

for identification .)

9

BY MR. GRANT

:

10

Q

Mr . Pruim, Exhibit 2 is a copy of

11

what appears to be a lease agreement between

12

the city of Morris and Community Landfill

•

13

Company

.

14

There is a

-- These are documents

15

Bates stamped 0353 to 0376 . There is a copy of

16

some sort of a sticker at the top . It says

17

original, July 1982 . I don't know where that

18

came from; but do you recognize this document?

19

A

Yeah, I haven't seen this in years

.

20

Q

Does it

-- Based on your review of it

•

21

today, does it appear to be the original lease

22

between Community Landfill Company?

23

It sure looks like it

.

24

MR. LaROSE: A copy of

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

20

1

Company

to

the city

of Morris

.

Do

you

2

recognize

that?

3

A

Now

I do, yeah

.

4

Q

And

do

you remember having

--

•

5

guaranteeing the royalties for Community

6

Landfill Company back in that period?

7

A

I do not recall this agreement at

8

all

.

9

Q

And just for the record, on 376, it's

10

also what appears to be the signature of Edward H

.

11

Pruim?

12

A

Yes

.

13

Q

Moving on to

--

14

MR. GRANT : Can we go off the record?

15

MR LaROSE

:

Sure

.

16

(WHEREUPON, a discussion

17

was had off the record .)

18

BY MR . GRANT

:

19

Q

Mr . Pruim, we have talked a little

20

bit off the record . What I'm interested in is

•

21

whether you and Mr . Edward Pruim did, in fact,

22

personally guarantee the royalty payments for

23

Community Landfill Company to the city of

•

24

Morris beginning in 1982?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

21

1

A

From document Exhibit 2, it appears

2

we did

.

3

Q

Do you have any personal recollection

4

of having done that back in 1982?

•

5

A

No, I don't

.

6

Q

Or of that being, a condition, say,

in

7

negotiations, a condition

--

8

A

I did not recall this document at

9

all

.

10

Q

After '85 when I think you stated

41

11

thatt you and Edward Pruim took over 100 percent

12

of the ownership in Community Landfill Company,

•

13

did you continue to guarantee royalties to the

14

city of Morris on behalf of Community Landfill

15

Company?

16

A

I don't recall signing any additional

17

agreements until '94 possibly when

-- around

18

that time when there was some amendments to the

19

lease . I don't think this is something that

20

was renewed every year . It was just out there

.

•

21

Q

Now, in 1994 -- Let's go off the

22

record again, please

.

23

MR. GRANT: We will mark this 3

.

24

---

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

27

1

Q

Just

so that I understand,

I believe

2

it's

true

that you and Mr

.

Edward Pruim are the

3

sole officers

of Community Landfill Company ;

is

4

that correct?

•

5

A

I believe

so

.

6

Q

How many employees

--

Let me ask this

7

question

.

Since the relevant period

is really

8

between 1994 and 2000,

between

that period,

how

9

many employees

did Community Landfill have?

10

A

I believe a high was maybe four

.

•

11

Q

And where were the employees located?

12

A

At the landfill, 1501 Ashley Road in

13

Morris

.

14

Q

Were all Community Landfill employees

15

located at the landfill itself in Morris?

16

A

No

.

17

Q

Who was not?

18

A

Well, there was some office work

19

being done

.

20

Q

Would that have been done either at

•

21

the Crestwood or Riverdale offices?

22

A

No, not necessarily

.

23

Q

What other offices did you have ; in

24

other words, where were your

--

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

0

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

•

29

1

Community Landfill lease the office space?

2

A

Crestwood was Ed's personal building,

3

and in Riverdale we just used some office

4

space

.

•

5

Q

During that same period, you know,

6

from, say, '93 to 2000 really is probably a

7

more accurate period, how did Community

A

8

Landfill Company get business?

9

A

Prior to what period?

10

Q

During the period from 1993 to 2000,

11

and I'm not trying to be overly picky but

12

that's really the relevant period for this

•

13

case

.

14

A

It would have been the same customers

15

that we had prior to that time, word of mouth

.

0

16

We never did actively solicit business

.

17

Q

You didn't have a salesman?

18

A

No

.

19

Q

Did you or Mr . Edward Pruim solicit

20

business? Did you contact companies seeking

•

21

waste disposal business for Community Landfill

22

Company?

23

A

We probably would have gotten some

24

phone calls, but I don't recall

.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

31

1

may be -- I don't

know

if

we need

to refer to

2

the lease

or not,

but

did Community Landfill

3

Company have a relationship with the city where

4

the city got free waste disposal?

•

5

A

I don't recall the specifics, but I

6

think they did

.

7

Q

Would all of that have been contained

0

8

in the lease or did you have some other

9

agreement?

10

A

That would have been in the first

11

lease,

I think

.

12

Q

Now, the second lease which I think

13

we've

-- the addendum to the lease which I

14

think is Exhibit Number 3, it's got some

15

different conditions . Were you involved in

16

negotiating those conditions with the city?

17

A

I don't think directly

.

I don't

18

recall any sit-downs with them

.

19

Q

How about Mr . Edward Pruim?

20

A

I don't recall

.

•

21

Q

During that same period of time in

22

the

'90s essentially from '93 to 2000, how many

23

people at Community Landfill Company had

24

authority to sign checks?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

32

1

A

From what period,

'93?

2

Q

I'm going to use the period '93 to

3

2000 because I think that's a relevant period

4

for the Complaint, but yeah

.

So during the

5

'90s but really

'93 to 2000

.

6

A

There were always,

I think, two

7

signatures required and the bank accepted our

8

stamps, also

.

9

Q

But what individuals had authority to

10

sign checks?

11

A

Ed and Bob

.

12

Q

Nobody

else?

13

A

I don't think so

.

14

MR. GRANT

:

Off the record real

15

quick

.

16

(WHEREUPON, a discussion

17

was had off the record .)

18

BY MR. GRANT

:

19

Q

Let me go back to Exhibit Number 4,

20

Paragraph 7 on Page 3, number Page 3 at the

21

bottom, where I have alleged or -- or where the

22

State's alleged that Parcel A is currently

23

accepting waste, there is a denial here

.

24

I'm wondering if

--

I mean

-- Well,

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

33

1

let

me

ask

you today

.

Is Morris Community

2

Landfill

in Parcel

A currently accepting waste?

3

A

We are accepting dirt for closure

.

4

MR. LaROSE : And, Counsel, if I might

0

5

add,

I think that was probably the reason

6

for the denial, the distinction between

7

waste and

--

I'm sure the contaminated soil

8

is waste too, but we are thinking about

9

waste as C and D or garbage

.

10

MR

.

GRANT

:

Okay

.

11

BY MR . GRANT

:

12

Q

And you are charging for

-- Let me

13

ask it as a question . Is Community Landfill

14

Company charging for the disposal of dirt in

15

Parcel A at the present time?

10

16

A

Yes

.

17

Q

How is it charged? Is it charged by

•

18

the ton?

Is it charged by the yard?

19

A

I believe it's by the yard

.

20

Q

And do you know what the rate is for

.~

21

disposal?

22

A

No, I don't

.

23

Q

Would Mr . Pelnarsh know, do you

.0

24

think?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Exhibit C

---

r

•

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

1

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

•

2

3

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

by

LISA MADIGAN,

4

Attorney General

of

the

State

of

Illinois,

•

5

Plaintiff,

6

vs

.

)PCB

No

.

97-193

7

•

COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO ., an )

8

Illinois Corporation,

9

Defendant

.

10

This is the deposition of

11

JAMES PELNARSH, called by the Plaintiff for

12

examination, taken pursuant to 35 Ill . Adm

.

13

Code 101 .161, 35 Ill . Adm. Code 101 .622 and

14

Supreme Court Rule 206(a)(1), taken before

15

PEGGY A. ANDERSON, a Notary Public within and

16

for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and

17

a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state,

18

at 188 West Randolph Street, 20th Floor,

19

Chicago, Illinois, on the 29th day of October

20

A .D. 2003, at 10 :00 o'clock a .m

.

21

22

23

24

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

1

I

EXHIBIT

C

---

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

7

1

obviously,

are about

your employment at

•

2

Community Landfill Company ; and when I talk

3

about your employment at Community Landfill,

4

specifically activities at the Morris Community

i.

5

Landfill in Morris, okay?

6

A

Right

.

7

Q

How long have you been employed with

8

Community Landfill Company?

9

A

I went out there in 1983

.

10

Q

Is that when you joined Community

11

Landfill Company?

12

A

Right

.

Yes

.

•

13

Q

Prior to that, did you work for any

14

affiliated companies . By that, I mean any

15

other companies owned by the owners of

16

Community Landfill?

17

A

Yes

.

18

Q

And what company were you employed

19

with prior to that?

20

A

XL Disposal

.

•

21

Q

Where was XL Disposal located?

22

A

In Crestwood, Illinois, on Kostner

23

Avenue

.

24

Q

Did you work in Crestwood?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

11

1

Unless

I

know

the relevance

of that

.

2

question with respect

to operation,

I'm

3

going

to direct

him not

to answer

the

4

question

.

•

5

MR

.

GRANT

:

You can't direct him not

6

to answer on the basis

of relevance,

7

though,

Mark

.

B

9

MR

.

LaROSE

:

I

can direct him not

to

answer

on

the basis of privilege

that

he

10

may

have

with respect

to that question

.

11

MR

.

GRANT

:

Well,

let's back up

.

12

It's

not necessary,

so we will go

on

.

13

MR

.

LaROSE

:

Okay

.

Thank you

.

14

MR

.

GRANT

:

We

will

fight

at

the

15

right

time

.

16

MR

.

LaROSE

:

I agree with

that

.

17

BY MR

.

GRANT

:

18

Q

As site supervisor,

what were

your

19

responsibilities?

Beginning

in

1983,

what

were

20

your responsibilities?

•

21

A

Opened the

gate

in

the morning and

22

closed

it at night ;

and whatever

came through

23

the gate,

you

know,

put

it

in the piles

and did

24

it properly

.

---

•

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

12

1

Q

Now, did you

-- You mentioned

2

employees,

and I guess we are going to

-- we'll

3

try to get it to make sure that we are

4

understanding timing ; but beginning in 1983,

•

how many employees did Community Landfill have

6

at the Morris Community Landfill in Morris?

7

A

I want to say there was like two to

8

three operators, paper picker and a girl that

9

was in the office

.

10

Q

Okay. So you had an office on site

•

11

at Morris Community Landfill?

12

A

Just a ticket office

.

13

Q

Okay . As far as operators,

what

14

would the operators do?

15

A

Garbage that came through the gate,

16

you'd put it in the pile and covered it at

17

night

.

18

Q

I'm going to ask some more questions

19

specifically about how a landfill operates

20

mostly because I don't know . I have never been

•

21

to one

.

22

So the question I asked was regarding

23

1983 . During the time that Community Landfill

24

was operating -- And let's talk specifically

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

21

1

know

.

I don't

know

.

•

2

Q

That's

fine

.

You mentioned

the

four

3

copies

of tickets

.

One

went

to

the trucker

I

4

think

you said?

•

5

MR

.

GRANT

:

Is

that

right,

Mark?

6

MR

.

LaROSE

:

He said one

--

7

MR

.

GRANT

:

-- went

to the

city

of

8

Morris,

one

to the city engineer

and

then

I

9

started asking questions

.

10

MR

.

LaROSE

:

He didn't

ask

--

yeah,

11

he didn't ask

--

He didn't

say

the trucker

.

12

He said they

kept one

.

One went

to the

13

city

.

One went

to

the city engineer

and

14

then you stopped there

.

15

MR

.

GRANT

:

Okay

.

16

BY THE WITNESS

:

17

A

And one

went

to the office

.

18

BY MR

.

GRANT

:

•

19

Q

To the office i ?

20

A

Riverdale

.

•

21

Q

In Riverdale,

okay

.

Was

that sent

to

22

the office for billing purposes?

23

A

Yes

.

24

Q

Were most

of

the -- Most of

the

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

22

1

people that brought waste

to the

site,

was that

2

done

on

a credit basis

;

in other words,

were

3

they subsequently billed or did they have to

4

pay when they dumped the loads?

•

5

A

It was on a credit basis as far as I

6

know

.

7

Q

Pretty much 100 percent?

9

A

I would say, yeah

.

Q

So once you sent the ticket to the

10

office in Riverdale, would you maintain a

11

continuing record of the shipments at your

12

office at the landfill itself? What I'm asking

•

13

is, for example, would you have like a

14

month-to-date volume or anything like that?

15

A

I don't believe so, no

.

I think

1111111

16

everything went to the office

.

17

Q

Okay. Okay. Let's narrow our focus

18

a little bit down to the period from 1990 to

19

1997 for the time being . I'm interested in the

20

prices and the tipping fees, the dumping

•

21

charges that Community Landfill charged to the

22

truckers

.

23

First of all, did you post a schedule

•

24

of fees at the landfill itself?

0

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

---

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

23

1

A

Not really

.

2

Q

How were the tipping

fees negotiated

3

by Community Landfill? How did they arrive at

4

the tipping fees with individual truckers?

•

5

A

To me, that was between the office

6

and the customer

.

I didn't have nothing to do

7

with that

.

8

Q

So during the time

-- and, again,

9

let's talk 1990 to 1997

.

Did you have

10

knowledge of what prices were being charged at

11

the Morris Community Landfill?

12

A

Some

.

13

Q

Just from discussing with truckers or

.

14

how did you come up with that?

15

A

We never really had it posted there

.

16

Everything was kind of done through the main

17

office, just write the tickets and the yardage

.

18

Q

Pricing and billing was not part of

19

your responsibilities there?

20

A

No

.

•

21

Q

Did you, yourself,

have the authority

22

to write checks to pay bills

--

23

A

No

.

24

Q

-- on behalf of the company at all?

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

•

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

.

•

24

1

A

No

.

2

Q

Did you have the authority to hire

3

and fire employees?

4

A

Never had to

.

•

5

Q

From your experience at the company,

6

can you tell me who for Community Landfill had

7

the authority to set prices for tipping fees,

8

disposal fees?

9

MR. LaROSE

:

Time frame

.

10

MR. GRANT

:

1990

to 1997

.

11

MR . LaROSE

:

Okay

.

If you know

.

12

Don't guess

.

•

13

BY THE WITNESS

:

14

A

I don't know who did it . You know,

15

it was all done in the main office

.

I don't

16

know who set the prices

.

17

BY MR. GRANT

:

18

Q

I'm asking . about the main office in

19

Riverdale . How many employees did Community

20

Landfill have at that office?

•

21

MR . LaROSE

:

Can we go off the record

22

for a second?

23

MR

.

GRANT

:

Sure

.

•

24

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

25

1

(WHEREUPON,

a discussion

2

was

had

off

the

record .)

3

BY MR

.

GRANT

:

4

Q

Mr

.

Pelnarsh,

Jim,

you mentioned

the

•

5

home office

in

Riverdale

.

It's my

--

Is

it

6

true

that

the office

was

in Riverdale

at

one

7

point

but

also

was

in Crestwood

at

one point?

8

A

Prior

.

9

Q

And perhaps

in

some other locations

10

away

from

the Morris Community Landfill

•

11

location ;

is that correct?

12

A

Prior to Riverside, it was in

13

Crestwood

.

14

MR. LaROSE

:

Riverdale

.

15

BY THE WITNESS

:

•

16

A

Riverdale

.

That's right

.

17

Q

So when we were discussing the

18

Riverdale office, we were basically discussing

19

the home office, whether it was in Riverdale or

20

Crestwood?

•

21

A

Right

.

22

Q

Do you know how many employees

23

Community Landfill Company had at either the

•

24

Crestwood office or the Riverdale office, but

•

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312) 853-0648

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

27

1

Q

Did

you work with both

Bob Pruim and

2

Edward Pruim?

3

A

Right

.

4

Q

Were both of them involved in the

•

5

Morris Community Landfill?

6

A

Yes

.

7

Q

Can you explain

-- Well, who was your

8

direct supervisor?

9

A

Whoever was

If Bob was out, then

I

10

would talk to Ed if I called Crestwood for an

11

immediate decision

.

12

Q

Okay . That's clear . Do you know who

13

was responsible for okaying the payment of

14

bills, bills that may come up at the Morris

15

Community Landfill?

16

A

That's back in the office, too

.

17

That's Crestwood

.

18

Q

Did they have a payroll staff or

19

something?

20

A

Yes

.

Yes

.

•

21

Q

On the paychecks you had, for

22

example,

for yourself and the employees,

who

23

would sign those checks?

•

24

A

Bob or Ed

.

•

TOOMEY REPORTING (312) 853-0648

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

TOOMEY REPORTING

(312)

853-0648

0

38

1

Q

Okay. Okay

.

Do

you

have

any

2

knowledge

of

financial assurance

requirements

3

relating

to closure

or post-closure

care?

4

A

That's

the main office again

.

0

5

don't know

.

6

Q

To

the best

of your understanding,

7

that would be

the responsibility of others

40

8

within the organization?

9

A

Right

.

10

Q

Okay

.

Okay

.

Can you tell me what

11

the current status of the Morris Community

12

Landfill is?

What's going on there right now

13

today?

14

MR . LaROSE : Objection

to

the

15

question, relevance and it may involve some

16

privilege

.

17

MR . GRANT : Can we go off the record

18

just for a second?

41111

19

MR. LaROSE

:

Yes

.

20

(WHEREUPON,

a discussion

21

was had off the record .)

22

BY MR . GRANT

:

23

Q

Mr

.

Pelnarsh,

was any waste ever

24

removed from Parcel B and taken to either

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Exhibit D

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

**V

ANDREWS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INC 3535 Maylbwer Bivd,. S{xirlg6ekl, IIIir1Ci5 62707/(217) 787-2334

April 19, 1993

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Waste Accounting and Fees Unit

Solid Waste Management Section

Division of Land Pollution Control

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

re :

0630600001 - Grundy County

Morris Community Landfill

- Parcel B

Dear Correspondent :

Enclosed

is

the completed Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification Form for the subject site

.

Please contact us if you have any questions or desire further information on the data provided .

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Madonia

Environmental Engineer I

Division of Solid Waste Management

CC :

Community Landfill Corp .

Mayor Washburn

- City of Morris

Enclosure

RMM:njm

EXHIBIT

CA V

. (')A

71 7AZOAOc

---

I

r

I

9

.

ELECTRONI(bl5klrhblOpRBliEoIdl

y

EGk CvL Rff'

d~u~.F~84~(JAf3Y 6, 2006

,1 10 WASTE LANDFILL CAPACITY CFR

. ICATIOry

.

I

.

FOR SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS PERMITTED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER

. 18, 1990

a. Determine the remaining volume of the landfill (air space) allowed in

the develo mental and supplemental permits assigned to your

site. 51,920 . cubic yards (1)

1974-ZZ-DE

c

.

d .

e .

g . .

Developmental Permit Number-

:

Developmental Permit :Date

:

Supplemental Permit Number :

Supplemental Permit Date

:

IL 532 2165

LPC 480 Mar-93

April 5, 1974

1989-005-SP

6-5-89

f. Increase of airspace in cubic yards allowed by the supplemental

permi t :

Approximately 2 million cubic yards

Method. used for determining the,remalning volume (check one)

:

survey

x

aerial photograph

X

or other (describe)

Aerial Survey supplemented with recent field survey . Volumes calculated

using Auto CAD and DCA Software .

II . FOR SOLID" WASTE LANDFILLS PERMITTED AFTER SEPTEMBER 18, 19,90

Determine the remaining volume of the landfill (air space) allowed In

both the permit and supplemental permits assigned to your

site . cubic yards (1)

b. Permit Number :

c. Permit Date

:

d . Supplemental Permit Number

:

e. Supplemental Permit Date

:

f. Increase of airspace in cubic yards allowed

permit :

Method used for determining the. remaining volume (check one) :

survey

aerial photograph

; or other (describe)

by the supplemental

.

NOTICE

Infcnnadon required by this fomr must be provided to comply

with 415 ILCS S=-15 1993)

.

This

lone has beer approved by the Fomu Management center

.

---

ELECTRON IC5ILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6 2006

Page 2

50LID WASTE IANDFIII

CAPACITY CERTIFICATION (CONTINUFD)

III . REMAINING VOLUME AVAILABLE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

a . Amount of permitted volume needed for daily and intermediate cover

:

31,100

cubic yards (2)

(±6% Allowance)

b . Amount of permitted volume needed for final cover

:

200,880

cubic yards (3)

(in area of calculation only)

c. Remaining volume available for waste disposal

:

511,920

cubic yards (l) (see I . or II . a . above)

31,100

cubic yards (2) (see III . a .

200,880

cubic yards (3) (see III . b

.

279,940

cubic yards (4)

above)

above)

IV

.

AVAILABLE CAPACITY IN TERMS OF "AS RECEIVED" HASTE

a .

Average' density of waste as received

:

(assumed)

± 600

number of pounds per cubic "gate yard"

b .

Average compaction ratio of waste` as St is placed

in

the fill area

:

1.66 :1

ratio

(From Compaction Study

- 1992)

c .

How many gate yards can you fit into an in-place yard?

1 .66

cubic yards (5)

d .

Volume of waste as received that can be disposed in the remaining

permitted capacity :

279,940

cubic yards (4) (see III . c. above)

x

1 .66

cubic yards (5) (see IV . c. above)

464,700

cubic yards (6)

---

i

i

VI . ALTERNATE METHOD OF DETERMINING AVAILABLE CAPACITY

a . If an alternate method has been used, please describe

:

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Page

3

£QUDWASTELANDFILL CAPACITY CERTIFICATION

(CONTINUED)

c . If there are any adjustments to, this life expectancy, please describe

:

Note .: List any pending supplemental permits which will increase the

landfill capacity and associated airspace increase

in cubic yards .

.

The landfill may remain open until March 1995 by limiting waste

receipts from company owned haulers to fulfill lease agreements

change with time affecting waste compaction ratio .

.

with the City of Morris. Furthermore, waste characteristics . may

V .

LIFE EXPECTANCY OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILL

a. Determine how much waste

- was received at the landfill during the

. previous 12 months during the time period of April 1., 1992 - March

31, 1993 :

344,217

(Information provided by

cubic yards (7)

landfill operator)

b. Determine the number of. .years life remaining at the current disposal

rate

:

4.64,700

cubic yards (6) (see IV. d. above)

divided

by

344 217

cubic yards (7) (see V. a . above)

1.35

years (8)

.

---

r

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Page 4

SOLID WASTE IANDFIII CAPACITY CFRTIFICATION (CONTINUED)

SIGNATURES

All Solid Haste Landfill Capacity Certifications shall be signed by the person

designated below or by a duly authorized representative of the person

:

Corporation - By a principal executive officer of at least the level of

vice-president .

Partnership or Sole Proprietorship - By a general partner or the

proprietor, respectively .

Government - By either a principal executive officer or a ranking elected

official

.

A person is a duly authorized, representative only if

:

1

the authorization is made in writing by a person described above ; and

2 .

is submitted with this application (a copy of a previously submitted

authorization can be used) .

I hereby affirm that all information contained in this "Solid Waste Landfill

Capacity Certification" is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and

belief

.

Owner Name

:

Owner Signature

Title :

Operator Na

Operator Signature: X

L,

Mayor, City of Morris

Edward Pruim

April 19, 1993

(Date)

April 19, 1993

Secretary/Treasurer

(Date)

Title

: Community Landfill Corporation

I hereby affirm the capacity estimates have been prepared by, or under the

supervision of, a. professional engineer and that all Information contained in

this "Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification" is true and accurate to the

best of my knowledge and belief .

Engineer Signature

:

April 19, 1993

Engineer Name:

(Date)

R. Michael McDermont, P.E .

Engineer Seal :,

Engineer Address

:

Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc ., -~

3535 Mayflower Boulevard

iJ

r

Springfield, Illinois 62707

C5247151

'•,

1

a

L `5

REG

(217) 787-Z334

=

PP.s E.>

c~G;SEER

p

_

Engineer Phone No . :

i

or

JZ:rmit0003v/38-40

~CLtNO

.Wy~[1

1;r.`l.

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Exhibit E

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

A&

ANDREWS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INC. 3535 MalflovF'rM., Sprngfed, Illings62707/(217) 787-2334

January 18, 1995

Waste Accounting and Fees Unit

Solid Waste Management Section

Division of Land Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

re

:

0630600001

-- Grundy County

Morris Community Landfill - Parcel B

Dear Correspondent

:

Enclosed is the completed Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification

Form for the subject site

.

Please contact us if you have any questions or desire further information on the data provided

.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. htadonia

Environmental Engineer I

Division of Solid Waste Management

VJM:pII

enclosure

cc: Ed Pruim

Mode with Recycled Filler

RE

CEIVED

JAN 2

01995

LEPA-DLPC

FAX: (2

,171787-9-'

-- :

---

,

As

ELECTRONIC

FILUVry

('F

~

F~F1CE fEEBRVARY 6 2006

f~,

RECEM

ED

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CAPACITY CERTIFICATION

JA' 2

0

for January

1

. 1995

1995

~f

(

EPA-DLPC

SITE INFORMATION (Please type or print legibly)

Site Identification

Name

:

Morris Community Landfill-Parcel B

Site .° (I EPA):

0610600001

Physical Site Location (Street, Road, etc .)

:

Ashley Road

City, Zip Code:

Morris, IL

County :

Grundy

Owner/Operator Identification

Owner

Operator

Name

:

City of Morris Community Landfill Corporation

Address:

320 Wauponsee Street 13701 South Kostner Avenue

Morris, IL 60450 Crestwood, IL

60445

c .

Type Waste (Mark all that apply)

X General Municipal Refuse

Hazardous

X

Special (Non-hazardous)

Chemical Only (exciudi.n'g putrescible)

Inert Only (excluding chemical and putrescible)

Other (describe

:

ii . PERMIT INFORMATION

a .

Developmental/Construction Permit

:

Number

:

1974-22-DE

Date

:

April 5, 1974

b .

Expansion Permit(s)

:

c

.

Contact Name

:

Phone R

:

Mayor Robert Feeney

-Robert Pruim

(815) 942-0103 (708) 597-3380

Number(s)

:

.

1989-005-SP

Date

:

June 5 . 1989

The total remaining volume of the landfill

(air space) allowed in the developmental/

construction and expansion permits assigned

to this site (in cubic' yards)

:

176,900 (1),

d

.

Overall increase of air space in, cubic

yards allowed by the expansion permit(s)

:

Approximately 2,000,000 yd

3

reported on the 1994 Solid Waste Capacity Certification .

a

Sr,

`*NED

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Page

2

SOLIDWASTELANDFILL CAPACITY CERTIFICATION

(CONTINUED)

III . REMAINING VOLUME AVAILABLE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

a

.

Method used for determining the remaining volume (check one)

:

survey aerial photo other (describe)

b

.

Amount of permitted volume needed for daily and intermediate cover

:

cubic yards (2)

c

.

Amount of permitted volume needed for final cover

:

cubic yards (3)

d

.

Remaining volume available for waste disposal

:

cubic yards (1) (see II . c . above)

cubic yards (2) (see III . b . above)

cubic yards (3) (see III . c . above)

cubic yards (4)

IV . AVAILABLE CAPACITY IN TERMS OF "AS RECEIVED" WASTE

a

.

Average density of waste as received

:

number of pounds per cubic "gate yard"

b

.

Average compaction ratio of waste (How many gate yards can you fit

into an In-place yard?)

:

cubic yards (5)

c

.

Volume of waste as received that can be disposed in the remaining

permitted capacity

:

cubic yards (4) (see III . d . above)

X

cubic yards (5) (see IV . b . above)

cubic

yards (6)

---

I

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Page

3

Slll0 WASTE LANDFILL CAPACITY CERTIFICATION

(CONTINUED)

LIFE EXPECTANCY OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILL

a

.

Amount of remaining capacity, as reported on April l ; 19.94

:

264,290 * cubic

yards

V .

b

.

Amount of waste received at

December 31., 1994

:

**

457,008

cubic yards (7)*

c

.

Remaining capacity and years left at the current disposal rate as of

January 1, 1995

:

0 cubic yards (6) (see IV. c . above

-

these should be the same numbers)

cubic yards (7) (see V .- b . above)

0

years (8)

d

.

Please describe any adjustments or changes to

, these .numbers

.

Note : List any pending expansion permits that will increase the

landfill capacity and associated air space increase in cubic yards

.

Provided

by IEPA .

Provided by the Operator to IEPA in Quarterly Reports

.

the landfill between April l, 1994 and

VT

. ALTERNATE METHOD OF DETERMINING AVAILABLE CAPACITY

-

.

If an alternate method has been used, please_, describe

:

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Page

4

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL CAPACITY CERTIFICATION (CONTINUED)

SIGNATURES

All Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certifications shall be signed by the person

designated below or by a duly authorized representative of the person :

Corporation -

By

a principal executive officer of at least the level of

vice-president

.

Partnership or Sole Proprietorship -

By

a general partner or the

proprietor, respectively

.

Government -

By

either a principal executive officer or a ranking elected

official

.

A person is a duly authorized representative only if

:

1

.

the authorization is made in writing by a person described above ; and

2

.

is submitted with this application (a copy of a previously submitted

authorization can be used)

.

I hereby affirm that all Information contained in this "Solid Waste Landfill

Capacity Certification" is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and

belief

.

Owner Name

:

Edward Pruim

Owner Signature

:

Title

:

Operator Name

:

Operator Signature

:

Title

:

Secretary

City of Morris

Robert T. Feeney, Ma or

I hereby affirm the capacity estimates have been prepared by, or under the

supervision of, a professional engineer and that all information contained in

this "Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification" Is true and accurate to the

best of my knowledge and belief :-

Engineer Signature

:

uinn

-

d

yf

dr-PAI

(/177

(Date)

Engineer Name

:

,

~

Y*FS

lttr

S AutQFw5

Engineer Seal

:

Engineer Address

:

Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc .

3535 Mayflower Boulevard

Springfield, IL

62707

Engineer Phone No

.

:

(217) 787-2334

JHD :jk/sp/379w

///7/¢3 -

(Date)

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Exhibit

F

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED. CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

-

•_

ANDREWS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INC. 3535 tvloyfb' er Blvd., S0179Leld. Illinois 62707/(217) 787-2334

January 15, 1996

.

Waste Accounting and Fees Unit

Solid Waste Management Section

Division of Land Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

re :

0630600001

-- Grundy County

Morris Community Landfill -- Parcel B

Dear Correspondent :

Enclosed is the completed Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification

Form for the subject site .

Please contact us, if you have any questions or desire further information on the data provided .

Sincerely,

Vincent J .

adonia

Environmental Engineer II

Division of Solid Waste Management

CC

:

Robert Pruim

Enclosure

VJM:njm

Mode with Recyded Fiber

EXHIBIT

I

F

l

FAX (2

,17)737-94y- ,=

---

CEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

STE LANDFILL CAPACITY CERTIFICATION

January 1, 1996 ~-~

3

For office Use Only

H

Site Information

(Please type or print legibly)

Initials

a.

Site Identification

Date

Name: Morris Community Landfill - Parcel B

ELECTRONIC FILING

;KTAL

pP

~~

>t

SOLID W

9

9

c .

Type of Ownership/Operation

(Circle Two)

C

Municipally owned)

Privately owned

Municipaily operated

C

Privately operated

d .

Type of Waste Received

(mark all that apply)

X General Municipal Refuse

- Hazardous

X

Special (Non-hazardous)

Chemical Only (excluding putrescible)

__ Inert Only, (excluding chemical and putrescible)

- Other (describe) :

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to request this information pursuant to 3511/. Adm. Code 858.267(c)

implementing and authorized by section 22 .150 of the Environmental Protection Act (415ILCS 5/22.15(0(1994)1

5

FEIN # :

Site # (IEPA) :

0630600001

Physical Site Location (Street, Road, etc) :

1501 Ashley Road

pity, ZpCode :

Morris, TT,

60450

County:

Grundy

b .

Owner/Operator Identification

Owner Name :

City of Morris

Address

:

320 Wauponsee Street

Morris,

IL

60450

Contact Name

:

Ma

or Robert

eene

should be familiar with IEPA solid

waste

fee reports

Phone# :

(A75)

947-nln3

Operator Name :

Community Landfill Corporation

Address :

13701 South Kostner Avenue

rractwnnd . TT .

60445

Contact Name :

Robert Pruim

should

be familiar with IEPA solid waste fee reports

Phone#

(708) 597-3380

---

(T)

Ill .

Remaining Volume Available for Waste Disposal

a. Method and date used for determining the remaining volume (check one and provide date)

:

survey

:

X

'

date

:

01/96

;

aerial photo

: x date

:

.

05/95

other

(describe

and

date):

Aerial photograph wassupplementedby

field

survey

.

n

cubic yards (4) (see III . d. above)

1 .66

cubic yards (5) (see IV. b . above)

cubic yards (6)

.

ire

.""8

3

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

It .

Permit Information

a .

Developmental/Construction Permit

:

Date

:

April

5,

1974

Permit Number :

1974-22-DE

b .

Other Permit(s)

:

1

.

Number :

1989-005-SP

Date :

June

5,

1,989

2

.

, Number :

Date :

c .

Overall increase (or decrease)of air space in cubic yards allowed by the above permit(s)

:

1

.

Apprnximate ly

9,nnn nnn

yA 3

2 .

d .

The total remaining volume of the landfill (air space) allowed in the developmental/construction and

other permits assigned to this site as ofJanuary 1, 1996 (in cubic yards)

:

b .

c .

d .

Remaining permitted volume needed for daily and intermediate cover :

*

cubic yards (2)

Remaining permitted volume needed for final cover

:

*

cubic yards (3)

Remaining volume available for waste disposal as of January 1, 1996

:

cubic yards (1) (see II . d, above)

*

Final cover

is currently

cubic yards (2) (see Ill . b . above)

being applied by the operator

cubic yards (3) (see Ill . c. above)

over the facility .

0

cubic yards (4)

IV.

Available Capacity in Terms of "As Received" Waste

a .

Average density of waste as received :

1600

number of pounds per cubic `gate

yard"

b .

c

.

Average compaction ratio of waste as it is placed into the fill area

(How many gate yards

can you

fit

into an in-place yard?)

:

I

6

s

cubic yards (5)

Volume of waste as received that can be disposed in the remaining permitted capacity

:

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Note: List any pending permit applications that will increase (or decrease) the landfill capacity and associated

airspace increase (or decrease) in cubic yards .

VI. Alternate Method of Determining Available Capacity

a .

If an alternate method has been used, please describe :

IAAb~B0001

y

.

Life Expectancy of the Solid Waste Landfill

a .

Determine how much solid waste was received at the landfill, in "gate yards", during the previous

12 months, January 1, 1995

- December 31, 1995 :

540,135

cubic yards (7)

b.

Determine the number of years of life remaining at the current disposal rate :

0

cubic yards (6) (see IV, c. above)

540 .119

cubic yards (7) (see V . a . above)

=

0

years (8)

c .

Expected closure date for facility :

d .

Please describe any adjustments or changes to these numbers .

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 6, 2006

VII .

Sinnatures

All Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certifications shall be signed by the person designated below or by a duly

authorized representative of the person :

Corporation - By a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-president

.

Partnership or Sole Proprietorship - By a general partner or the proprietor, respectively .

Government - By either a principal executive officer or a ranking elected official

.

A person is a duly authorized representative only if

:

1

.

the authorization is made in writing by a person described above; and

is submitted with this certification form (a copy of a previously submitted authorization can-be used) .

I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision . Based on my inquiry of the person or per-

sons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of

my knowledga and belief, true, accurate, and complete . I am aware that there are significant penalties under Section

44

of the En !irnnmental

Protection Act for submitting false information, including the possibil'ty of fine and imprisonment for knowing viclations

.

perator

Name :

Aerator

Signature :

Title :

President

Owner

Name:

City ofMorris

~-

Owner

Signature :

Title:

411l

t

eoug E7

Engineer Address :

AndrewsEnvironmental Fnaineerina,

3535MavflowerBoulevard

Springfield,

IL

62707

Engineer Phone Number. (71 7)

7R7-7114

Tnc .

1/15/96

date

/9

/yr

date

{/

date

I

iAIwSeal :

O '

82.30817

-F,L

1,

-A 0

REWSTERED

N

PtCFESSIOUat

-

ENGINEER

OF

/y/

,(,441K

8114110

---